JIM ROBERTS COMPANY; PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE WALKER MERCADO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAWALKER MERCADO, Applicant,vs.JIM ROBERTS COMPANY; PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ7673809ADJ7673752(Stockton District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION ANDDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 29, 2012, wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a laborer on December 16, 2010 (ADJ7673809), sustained industrial injury to his thoracic spine and lumbrosacral spine, but that his claim for workers’ compensation benefits is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10).1 The WCJ also found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury during the period of employment through and including December 16, 2010 (ADJ7673752), to his low back, mid back, upper back, radiating into the upper and lower extremities, and other body parts. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain cumulative trauma industrial injury, arguing that the WCJ did not consider the heavy physical work of landscaping, and the role of such work in regard to the degenerative changes to applicant’s spine as shown on the MRI of his lumbar and thoracic spine. Applicant also contends that the WCJ erred in failing to keep the record open for the final report of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) and for the cervical MRI. Applicant contends that a cervical MRI constitutes newly discovered evidence which was not available at time of trial. Applicant further contends that the WCJ erred in finding that his claim for a specific injury is 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , barred by section 3600(a)(10), arguing that he reported back pain to his supervisor on December 16, 2010. We have considered the Petitio
Menu
